Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech

LANGUAGE

&

COMMUNICATION

www.elsevier.com/locate/langcom

Language & Communication 24 (2004) 207–240

Tracking the incidence of formulaicexpressions in everyday speech: methods

for classification and verification

Diana Van Lancker-Sidtis a,b,*, Gail Rallon a

a Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, New York University, 719 Broadway,

New York, NY 10003, USAb Nathan Kline Institute for Psychiatric Research, 140 Old Orangeburg Road, Bldg. 35, Orangetown,

New York, 10962-2210, USA

Abstract

The importance in communication of speech formulas, idioms, proverbs and other for-

mulaic expressions (FEs) has recently been recognized, but studies of their actual usage are still

few, and methods of classification remain unrefined. The incidence of FEs in a screenplay,

Some Like It Hot, was examined, and found to make up nearly 25% of the phrases in the text.

These results are compared with other corpus studies. To verify the classification method used,

a survey provided a quantification of native speakers’ knowledge of FEs. These findings

support a dual model of language ability that includes both configurational and combinatorial

modes.

� 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Formulaic language; Fixed expressions; Text analysis; Models of language performance;

Pragmatics of language

1. Introduction

Human language is distinguished by its creative potential. New sentences, never

spoken or heard before, can easily be formulated given the set of rules for

*Corresponding author. Present address: 100 Bleecker Street, Apt. 5F, New York, NY 10012, USA.

Fax: +1-845-398-5575.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Van Lancker-Sidtis).

0271-5309/$ - see front matter � 2004 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2004.02.003

mail to: [email protected]

208 D. Van Lancker-Sidtis, G. Rallon / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 207–240

combining a large set of vocabulary items (Chomsky, 1965). As linguists have

explained for many years, this system allows for the generation of an infinite set

of context-free sentences from a finite grammar (e.g., Akmajian et al., 1984;

Trask, 1995). The standard view in linguistic textbooks is stated by Pinker:

‘‘. . .virtually every sentence that a person utters or understands is a brand-new

combination of words, appearing for the first time in the history of the universe’’(Pinker, 1995, p. 22). This statement, however, is seriously misleading. Many

utterances in everyday language are conventional expressions that must be used in

a certain way.

Conventional or formulaic expressions (FEs) are distinguished from novel ut-

terances in a number of ways. They often contain lexical items with nonliteral or

nonstandard meanings (e.g., ‘‘It broke the ice’’; ‘‘just in the nick of time’’). Unlike

novel sentences, which can be strictly neutral in affective content, FEs are generally

laced with attitudinal or emotional innuendoes. 1 For example, ‘‘she has him eating

out of her hand’’ implies submission, dependence, and emotional attachment; simi-

larly, ‘‘have a nice day’’ entails pleasantness. In contrast, the novel expression ‘‘the

cat is on the chair’’ requires marked intonation or added adjectives to communicate

any particular affective nuance.

Most importantly, and as an essential, even definitional feature, FEs have a un-

ique coherence not present in novel utterances. Word selection and word order are

determined; intonation is usually stereotyped, in that choices for sentence accent are

limited: No man is an island sounds ‘‘wrong’’ with an accent on man or is; I wouldn’twant to be in his shoes does not sound native, or well-formed, when shoes carries the

accent (these kinds of ‘‘errors’’ are heard in second language speakers, (Van Lanc-

ker-Sidtis, 2004)).

FEs are ‘‘familiar’’ in the sense that a native speaker will recognize them as

having this special status. For example, the sentence ‘‘The stuffed cat has trian-

gular-shaped green spots’’ has probably not been heard before; this sentence has

none of the properties of familiarity and predictability mentioned above. On the

other hand, the expressions ‘‘See you later!’’ or ‘‘Let’s call it a day’’ or ‘‘You don’tsay!’’ (speech formulas); ‘‘I’d like to give you a piece of my mind’’ or ‘‘He’s at the end

of his rope’’ (idioms); and ‘‘Look before you leap’’ or ‘‘He who hesitates is lost’’

(proverbs) are all ‘‘familiar’’, in that native speakers can recognize and complete

these utterances (when words are omitted) as well as demonstrate knowledge of

their specialized meanings and appropriate contexts. As stated by Jackendoff

(1995), a very large number of a broad range of formulaic expressions ‘‘are familiar

to American speakers of English; that is, an American speaker must have them stored

in memory’’ (p. 135). It follows that a survey using recall and recognition tasksadapted for the study of FEs can provide objective and quantifiable data to support

the claim that native speakers ‘‘know’’ FEs.

1 Conventional expressions such as ‘‘as a matter of fact’’ and ‘‘salt and pepper’’ are cohesive and

familiar, but often lack the nonliteral and affective properties inherent in most other formulaic expressions.

D. Van Lancker-Sidtis, G. Rallon / Language & Communication 24 (2004) 207–240 209

Linguistic scholars collecting speech formulae – the expressions used in con-

versational interaction – have not exhausted the list; there are probably tens of

thousands of these utterances. They are very important for native competence

(Fillmore, 1979); that is, to sound like a native speaker, proper knowledge and use

of speech formulae is essential (Pawley, 1985, 1991; Pawley and Syder, 1983;

Jespersen, 1933; Lakoff, 1973; Searle, 1975; Wray and Perkins, 2000). Additionalimportant categories of FEs are idioms and proverbs (Taylor, 1931; Mieder, 1978,

1984; Makkai, 1972; Honeck, 1997; Str€assler, 1982; Gibbs, 1994; Gibbs and

Nayak, 1989; Cutting and Bock, 1997; Templeton, 1997; Glucksberg, 1991; Tan-

nen, 1989), as well as a large array of formulaic expressions variously classified as

slang, sayings, expletives, cliches, maxims, and slogans, and other types of collo-

cations (Van Lancker, 1975, 1988; Alexander, 1978; Cerm�ak, 1994; Coulmas, 1981,

1994). In his study of idioms, Weinreich (1969) gave an estimate of 25,000 for-

mulaic expressions in English. Jackendoff (1995) derived a long list from thetelevision show ‘‘Wheel of Fortune’’, where over 10 years approximately 15,000

formulaic expressions have occurred. Bolinger (1976) asserted that memorized

expressions play a significant role at all levels of the grammar – that these unitary

expressions interact continuously with newly created output (Bolinger, 1977;

Sinclair, 1987).

It is likely that the characteristics of rhyme, alliteration and rhythm so frequently

seen in formulaic expressions (e.g., ‘‘bell, book and candle’’, ‘‘it takes one to know

one’’, ‘‘the coast is clear’’, ‘‘the best laid plans of mice and men’’) assist in maintainingthe repertory of formulaic expressions (Alexander, 1978). Numerous phonological

and semantic factors that may underlie speakers’ knowledge of the formulaic linear

order of a huge repertory of frozen expressions have been examined (Cooper and

Ross, 1975; Pinker and Birdsong, 1979) but none of these efforts provides con-

vincingly simplified generalities. The compelling but strange fact remains that

speakers of a language know ‘‘by heart’’ a very, very large number of formulaic

expressions.

Attempts to characterize the structure of FEs or to integrate them in currentlanguage models have met with mixed success (Katz, 1973; Nunberg et al., 1994).

Serious scholarship in formulaic expressions in English has been somewhat hindered

by a perspective that they are ‘‘inferior speech’’ (a term used by Hughlings Jackson,

1874; see also Redfern, 1989), or a ‘‘ ‘lazy’ solution to linguistic selection’’ (Drew and

Holt, 1988). Traditional linguistic studies have largely ignored these formulaic ex-

pressions (but see Chafe, 1968; Weinreich, 1969); a plea for ‘‘serious grammatical

consideration of the ‘realm of idiomaticity in a language’’’ appears in Fillmore et al.

(1988, p. 534). 2

2 Other linguistic cultures may hold FEs in higher regard: in Nigeria, proverbs are brought into

important points in conversation (Achebe, 1958), Yiddish sayings are utilized for transmitting wisdom

(Matisoff, 1979), and Turkish and Greek languages honor tactical use of speech formulas (Tannen and€Oztek, 1981). Russian culture also appears to value formulaic expressions.


In English speaking cultures, not only are FEs often subsumed under the op-

probrious label of ‘‘cliches’’, but also current linguistic models emphasize combi-

natorial creativity as the central property of human language (Van Lancker, 2001a).

However, there is a strong argument for a model of language that allows for alter-

nation of ‘‘fixity and creativity’’ (Tannen, 1989). People performing conversational

analysis are led to this view. Some have seen repetition as ‘‘at the heart. . .of howdiscourse is created’’ (p. 3). This is accomplished in large part by use of iterated

instances of mutually known – formulaic – expressions.

These observations lead to a model of language that supports two different modes

of processing, which several authors have previously proposed. Hopper (1988)

speaks of both ‘‘a priori’’ and ‘‘emergent’’ aspects of grammar. Lounsbury (1963)

described two constructions, one ad hoc and the other ‘‘familiar and employed as a

whole unit’’, as constituting different behavioral events; he suggested that ‘‘their

psychological statuses in the structure of actual speaking behavior may be quite dif-

ferent’’ (p. 561). Bolinger (1961, 1976, 1977) consistently recognized and gave evi-

dence of an interplay between more or less remembered and newly created speech,

and more recently, Sinclair (1987, 1991) posits the ‘‘open choice’’ and the ‘‘idiom’’

principles as underlying text description. An interplay of ‘‘automatic’’ and newly

created processes has traditionally been noted in behaviors of many kinds (gestural,

vocal, motor), with corresponding involvement of levels of the hierarchically orga-

nized nervous system (Van Lancker and Cummings, 1999; Lieberman, 2000, 2001;

Koestler, 1967).There is strong evidence from studies of normal and brain-damaged subjects that

novel language and FEs are processed by different mental (Lieberman, 1963;

Swinney and Cutler, 1979; Botelho da Silva and Cutler, 1993; Hoffman and Kemper,

1987) and neurological structures (Van Lancker, 1973, 1990, 1993, 2001a,b; Winner

and Gardner, 1977; Kempler et al., 1988; Myers and Linebaugh, 1981; Papagno and

Vallar, 2001). People with aphasia are sometimes able to better process formulaic

than novel expressions (Van Lancker, 1994; Van Lancker, 2000; Code, 1982, 1987,

1989; Blanken and Marini, 1997; Blanken et al., 1990) which may be attributable toright hemisphere function in production (Graves and Landis, 1985) and compre-

hension (Hughlings Jackson, 1874, 1915; Gardner et al., 1983; Van Lancker and

Kempler, 1987; Burgess and Chiarello, 1996). A role of the basal ganglia, which may

have motor control functions that more complex than previously understood

(Marsden, 1982; Baev, 1997; Cummings, 1993), has also been implicated in pro-

cessing of formulaic expressions (Speedie et al., 1993; Van Lancker and Cummings,

1999; Van Lancker, 2001a).

Although there is recently increased interest in FEs (e.g., Wray, 2002), little actualincidence data are available. Some material is found in Hain (1951), who catalogued

formulaic expressions in actual use among people who lived in a small German

village. Jay (1980) and Gallahorn (1971) tabulated use of cursing in specific popu-

lations (e.g., college students, health care professionals on a psychiatric ward). Al-

tenberg (1998) listed three-word combinations that occurred 10 times or more in the

London-Lund Corpus (Greenbaum and Svartik, 1990). Cowie (1992) performed a

study on ‘‘multiword lexical units’’ in newspaper language, differentiating idioms


from collocations of various kinds. In the most extensive treatment to date, Moon

(1998a,b) performed a descriptive study of formulaic expressions and idioms in an 18

million-word corpus of contemporary English, the Oxford Hector Pilot Corpus

(Glassman et al., 1992), augmenting her analysis from other text sources. Norrick

(1985) reports only one complete proverb, plus a few proverbial allusions, in the

43,165 line corpus of transcribed conversation published by Svartik and Quirk(1980). A comparative frequency count of proverbs in French and English conver-

sational corpora is described by Arnaud and Moon (1993).

Studies of the role of formulaic expressions in literary texts, especially in oral

literature, (Kiparsky, 1976; Kuiper, 2000), counted proverbs in the plays of Shake-

speare (Tilley, 1950; see Mieder, 1984). Schweizer (1978) listed 194 idioms in 2876

pages of six novels of G€unter Grass, yielding an average of 14.8 idioms per page. She

describes numerous literary devices throughout Grass’ writings that involve idio-

matic forms and meanings. The plays of Ionesco utilize an abundance of speechformulas to artistic effect as discussed by Klaver (1989). In his study of Homer’s

Iliad, Page (1959) estimates that about one-fifth of the poem is ‘‘composed of lines

wholly repeated from one place to another’’ (p. 223), and that within the Iliad’s 28,000

lines, there are approximately 25,000 repeated phrases.

As a field of study, formulaic language is handicapped by a bewildering array of

variously defined terms (Wray and Perkins, 2000). Partly because of the uncontrolled

and nonstandardized nomenclature, classification of FEs is difficult, and, com-

pounding the problem, methods for verification of categories are almost nonexistent.To develop better methods for classifying formulaic expressions, an analysis of

conversational dialog in a screenplay was first performed, followed by a verification

survey, and comparison of these results with measures made on natural conversa-

tional speech corpora. A screenplay was selected to document the use of formulaic

expressions in interactive talk, making the assumption that the authors were trying

to imitate natural speech.

2. Methods and materials

The screenplay ‘‘Some Like It Hot’’ 3 (SLIH) by Wilder and Diamond (1959) was

selected, because it has achieved the status of a classic, and it depicts lively con-

versation among a number of different characters. All formulaic expressions were

identified and classified into one of three relatively specifiable categories by two

independent raters. Disagreements were mediated until both raters agreed. Identified

FEs were first classified either as speech formula, idiom, or proverb. Many finerdistinctions could have been attempted, subclassifying into expletives, exclamations,

3 A special, pictorial edition of Some Like It Hot (Castle and Auiler, 2001) was recently published to

honor Billy Wilder. This effort acknowledged the 40th anniversary of the opening of the film (Rothman,

1999). At the time of his death a short time later at 95 years of age in 2002, Wilder was widely

memorialized in the media as a great innovator and brilliant moviemaker.


pause fillers, back channels, greetings, conventional expressions, and so on (Van

Lancker, 1988; Wray, 2002; Duncan and Niederehe, 1974; Schegloff, 1988; Mc-

Carthy, in press). However, since the immediate goals of this study were to determine

incidence of formulaic expressions in comparison to novel expressions and to de-

velop a verification survey of this comparison, it was judged that grosser categories

would best serve this stage of study. Classification is not at all straightforward, and ithas often been noted that formulaic expressions sometimes fall into more than one

category (Van Lancker, 2000; Altenberg, 1998).

The criteria for this study were as follows: speech formulas are highly dependent

on conversational context and often serve move the dialog forward (e.g., ‘‘That’s

good thinking’’) or monitor the action (‘‘This is where I get off’’), while others form

standard introductory forms in the sentence (e.g., ‘‘The last I heard’’). Other ex-

pressions which are obviously unitary, such as ‘‘all expenses paid’’ or ‘‘as far away as

possible’’, but are neither nonliteral (idiomatic) nor proverbial, were included in thegroup of speech formulas. In contrast, idioms are relatively context-free and their

meaning cannot be strictly determined from the usual meanings of the words (e.g.,

‘‘Why do you have to paint everything so black?’’); proverbs have both literal and

nonliteral interpretations, and point to a universal meaning (e.g., ‘‘You can’t make an

omelet without breaking an egg’’ or ‘‘You can’t keep a good man down’’). The line

between speech formula and idiom is often not clear. In many instances, an arbitrary

decision was made, given the overall goal of this project, which was to establish the

proportion of formulaic utterances in the dialog. For the most part, entire phrases orexpressions were listed; this included single words if that word constituted a full

expression (e.g., Right!). Mere cohesion, such as is seen the idiosyncratic verb plus

particle construction (e.g., run up) was not a criterion. A full listing is provided in

Appendix A.

3. Results: quantitative views

FEs present in the dialog were classified using these criteria. Both types (un-

ique expressions) and tokens (repeated occurrences) were counted and percentages

for each FE category were determined. The dialog, excluding stage directions and

character descriptions, contains 12,523 total words. The average number of words

in a conversational turn was 10.2 words. The total number of words comprising

FEs was 2008, or 16% of the words in the screenplay. The total number of FE

tokens is 529; removing repetitions yields 400 FE types. The average number of

words per formulaic phrase was 4.6 words, with a range of 1–14 words in length.To estimate incidence usage of FEs, occurrences of repeated phrases were in-

cluded. Forty-one FEs were repeated between 2 and 23 times. Most of these were

classified as speech formulas. The formulaic phrase category with the most

members was speech formula, with a total of 377 unique expressions; there were

145 idioms, and 7 proverbs (see Fig. 1). Expressions ranged from 1 to 14 words

in length. Excluding ‘‘yes’’, ‘‘no’’, and ‘‘well’’, there were 13 one-word expression

Fig. 1. Relative groupings of familiar nonliteral expressions classified as formulas, idioms, proverbs, and

novel expressions.


types, all of which were classified as formulas. Examples are ‘‘okay’’, ‘‘zowie’’,

and ‘‘good-bye’’. Two-word expressions were the most frequent.

As an estimate of the distribution of FEs throughout the screenplay, we di-

vided the dialog into 21 sets of 100 sentences or phrases, and counted all the FEs

in each set. Repetitions of previous phrases were included in the count. There was

a mean of 24 formulaic phrases per set of one hundred lines, with a range of 9–44. Fig. 2 shows the distribution of formulas, idioms, and proverbs throughout

Fig. 2. Distribution of FEs across the screenplay.


the screenplay, as calculated per sets of 100 lines. The percentage of FEs, when

viewed as a proportion of the total number of produced phrases (rather than in

terms of total word count), is 24.8%. This discrepancy (considering the FEs

constitute 16% of the total word count) is attributable to the fact that many of

the formulaic phrases are made up of one or two words, while novel expressions

tend to be longer. Considering that the MGM/Ua Studio 1959 film version of thescreenplay is 121 min long, the average FEs per minute is 4.3. When the distri-

bution of idioms, formulas and proverbs across the screenplay is observed (Fig.

2), it can be seen that formulas occur more conspicuously toward the beginning

of the action, when dramatis personae are getting acquainted and setting up

the story, while proverbs, which are used to impart general wisdom and truths

(Van Lancker, 2000; Norrick, 1985; Honeck, 1997; Tyler, 1978) occur exclusively

at the end.

4. Methods and materials: verification survey

To explore the notion of an operational definition of FEs, and to verify the

novel-formulaic distinction, a survey was designed to sample knowledge in the

general population. The results from this survey would give an indication of what

proportion of persons surveyed agreed with our identification of FEs from the

screenplay. For the survey, a set of 50 FEs was selected from the list derivedfrom ‘‘Some Like It Hot’’, along with 25 randomly ordered novel sentences, also

from the screenplay. The FEs had a mean of 5.1 words per phrase, with a range

of 3–11 words; the novel expressions averaged 5.5 words in length, with a range

of 3–11 words.

Two tasks were designed: one which resembled a recall procedure, and one

which involved recognition of the expressions, in the manner utilized in psycho-

linguistic testing (e.g., Horowitz and Manelis, 1973; Pickens and Pollio, 1979;

Osgood and Housain, 1974). In the recall task, FEs and novel expressions se-lected from the screenplay were presented in written form, with selected words

missing. After giving informed, written consent, subjects filled the blanks in a

‘‘cloze’’ procedure. Each expression was missing one word. Care was taken to

evenly distribute blanked words across novel and FEs (see Appendix B). In the

recognition task, subjects circled ‘‘F’’ (‘‘familiar expression’’) or ‘‘N’’ (novel ex-

pression) next to each item. Examples of each were given before the test, and all

subjects understood the distinction easily. The order of task, recall followed by

recognition, was maintained for all subjects.All subjects (n ¼ 21) were native speakers of American English, educated in the

USA, free of neurological or psychiatric disorders. They ranged in age from 18 to 58,

with a mean age of 23.5 years and a mean of 16.3 years of education. Data were

analyzed for the recall task by tabulating all of the responses for each item across

subjects, and calculating the proportion of words that matched the predicted word.

For the recognition test, percentage of ‘‘F’’ and ‘‘N’’ responses for the two types of

expressions was calculated.


5. Verification survey: results

Results are shown in Table 1. On the recall task (cloze), where subjects filled

in missing blanks, subjects performed significantly higher on FE than novel

items, as reflected in a two-sample, two-tailed t-test (t ¼ 7:33, p < 0:0001). Fur-

ther, 76% of words filled in by the subjects matched the target expressions forthe FEs, compared to 32% for the novel expressions. In the recognition task,

performance for both formulaic and novel expressions was overall high, but

attribution of FEs to the correct category was significantly higher (t ¼ 4:54,p < 0:001). The significantly higher performance on recall of words in FEs and

the overall high rate of identification of the two categories reflects general

knowledge of these expressions, while the modest agreements in the recall (cloze)

task for novel expressions is predictable from linguistic redundancy or distribu-

tional probabilities, in that lexical and syntactic context in some cases constrainsthe set of words that may appear.

6. Qualitative views: functions of formulaic language

We examined the rich textual usage of formulaic expressions in the screenplay,

SLIH, with an eye toward identifying functions known or previously described.

Major uses of formulas are to forward the action and to establish rapport andsolidarity (Schegloff, 1988; Tannen, 1989; McDermott and Tylbor, 1983). It can be

seen in the list provided in Appendix A how many of the expressions function as

directional signals, moving the action along: All aboard, break it up, can we talk to

you, Don’t crowd me, don’t look now, easy now, everybody hands up and face the

wall, fill ‘er up, get out of here, haven’t I seen you somewhere before, I beg your

pardon, I can tell you one thing, and so on. The second major use, establishment of

rapport, are also easy to find. Solidarity is expressed throughout by formulaic

expressions. Early in the screenplay, while Joe is spinning a story about a tooth-ache as an excuse for missing a date, Jerry suddenly catches on to the ruse, and he

feigns his complicity by saying ‘‘Boy, did it ever!’’ When Bienstock, the girls’ band

manager, says to Joe ‘‘You saved our lives’’, he responds ‘‘Likewise, I’m sure’’,

Table 1

Mean scores for same-word responses in the recall (cloze procedure) task for formulaic and novel ex-

pressions; correct identification of novel and familiar utterances in the recognition task

Type Recall (Cloze) Recognition

Agreement with target word Correct ID ‘‘F’’ OR ‘‘N’’ of

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

Formulaic 76% 4 91% 8

Novel 32% 5 66% 24


exploiting the ambiguity of that familiar expression. Formulaic expressions are

frequently repeated by two different speakers to echo – and thereby endorse – the

communication of the conversation partner. On page 87, Jerry says ‘‘First thing

tomorrow’’ to propose a plan to pay back their debts. Two lines later, Joe uses the

same expression to introduce his very different proposal: that the money be used to

place a bet at the dog track.In the case of repeated tokens, the same FE is sometimes used with different

nuances of meaning (p. 98). Such polysemy of ‘‘recurrent word-combinations’’ has

been previously noted (e.g., Moon, 1998a). For example, in the screenplay, ‘‘you

don’t say’’ means ‘‘you’re kidding’’ and is laden with irony on page 21; the same FE

communicates ‘‘really’’ on page 24, and, again, a third occurrence (p. 32) expressed

surprise and excitement (all screenplay citations are from Wilder and Diamond,

1959). ‘‘I beg your pardon’’ also has several different forces of meaning, with some-

thing close to ‘‘I’m shocked’’ on page 15, more like ‘‘excuse me’’ on page 22, and ‘‘canyou explain further’’ on page 30. ‘‘I’ll say’’ is a strong endorsement on page 2, and a

mild affirmation on page 37.

In natural conversation, idioms often occur in a context of complaint or dis-

agreement (Drew and Holt, 1988), which also constitutes part of the texture of

the screenplay analyzed here. To express their dissatisfaction with the band, the

girls say ‘‘You’ll be sorry’’ when Mary Lou welcomes Joe and Jerry to ‘‘No

Man’s Land’’ (p. 99); Bienstock complains to Sugar on seeing a flask fall on the

ground with ‘‘This is the last straw’’ (p. 101) Jerry interjects in his chant toconvince himself he’s a girl ‘‘I wish I were dead’’ (p. 103). ‘‘What do you think

you’re doing?’’ confronts Jerry with a complaint about his behavior underwater

(p. 116).

Another proposed pragmatic use of idioms, ‘‘to bring a topic to a close’’ (Drew

and Holt, 1988, p. 31), can be observed in the screenplay. Obvious usages are ‘‘I

guess I’d better go now’’ (Sugar, p. 119); ‘‘Fat chance’’ (Jerry, p. 122); ‘‘You can both

take a flying jump’’ (Jerry, p. 123); ‘‘It’s the thought that counts’’ (Sugar, p. 125); ‘‘Get

it while you’re young’’ (p. 134); ‘‘let’s shove off’’ (Joe, p. 139). Joe terminates play by asmall boy (Junior) on the beach with ‘‘This beach ain’t big enough for both of us’’ (p.

117). More bluntly, Joe dismisses the bellhop with ‘‘Beat it, buster’’ (p. 123). After

repeatedly querying Joe about whether his wife was helping him with the yacht, the

following interactions occur:

Joe. . .Look, if you’re interested in whether I’m married or not. . .Sugar. I’m not interested at all.

Joe. Well, I’m not.

Sugar. That’s very interesting.

Here a formulaic expression brings the topic to a close, while echoing previous

talk.

In many of these illustrations, it can be seen that FEs are used as aesthetic

device – to engage in wordplay (Graesser et al., 1996). Frequent uses of idiomatic


‘‘Sprachspiel’’ (language play) are to be found, similar to those detailed by

Schweizer (1978) in her study of the prose of G. Grass. She details 19 types of

language play specifically utilizing the special qualities of idioms: some examples

are elliptical use, coordination with words that do not belong in the idiom, two

conjoined idioms, exchange of words between idioms, and so on. Versions of

these tropes, specifically utilizing the special properties of speech formulas, idi-oms, and proverbs, appear in the screenplay. It has been suggested that such

devices also occur in nonscripted speech (Tannen, 1989; Tannen and €Oztek, 1981)

but the extent of this practice remains to be studied in detail; some examples are

given below.

In SLIH, more than twenty incidences were found where the occurrence of a

formulaic phrase lead to a response (in the following dialog) in which the for-

mulaic phrase was creatively manipulated or some aspect of the formulaic phrase

was used literally. Those manipulations affect sentence content and structure,word choice, and conversation turns of the following dialog. For example, as the

gangsters mill into the speakeasy, Mulligan uses an FE to make a request of

Toothpick Charlie: ‘‘refresh my memory’’, asking who owns the establishment.

Charlie responds, giving the name of a major gangster, and Mulligan comments

‘‘that’s very refreshing’’ playing on his previous FE, but this time with even more

irony. On page 8, sequencing of FEs makes for a humorous contrast: ‘‘He’s got

an empty stomach and it’s gone to his head’’ – an FE pun. Another trope in the

dialog is the play on a possible literal interpretation of the nonliteral expression.For example, after Joe uses an obvious nonliteral expression in ‘‘you’ve flipped

your wig’’, Jerry picks up on a word in the expression and converts it to literal

usage: ‘‘Now you’re talking. We pick up a couple of second hand wigs – a little

padding here and there. . .’’ (p. 8). Another example combines grouping FEs with

playing on the literal meaning when Jerry, dressed as Daphne, says ‘‘this is like

falling into a tub of butter’’. He then goes on about how he used to dream about

being locked in a pastry shop, alluding to his attraction to the female musicians.

Joe responds by saying ‘‘we’re on a diet’’ in his attempt to restrain Jerry. Asimilar play occurs when Bonapart, a mobster, says ‘‘There was something in that

cake that didn’t agree with them’’, referring euphemistically to the five corpses

(‘‘them’’) on the ground. This is followed by Federal Officer Mulligan’s sarcastic

remark ‘‘My compliments to the chef’’. Here two FEs are used in a way that

highlights their potential literal meanings, again in an ironic way. The literal

meaning derives from the fact that another gangster had leaped out of the cake

and sprayed gunshot around the room. A different type of lexical pun, referring

to the name of Marilyn Monroe’s character, Sugar, is made in Jerry’s comment‘‘I’d like to borrow a cup of that sugar’’. A play on idiomatic form is performed

by Jerry, trying to hold off Osgood, who is flirting with him; Osgood mentions

that his mother thinks he’s on his yacht deep-sea fishing, and Jerry responds:

‘‘Well, pull in your reel. . .You’re barking up the wrong fish’’, an allusion to the

well-known idiom that ends in ‘‘tree’’.

Another subtle play on words occurs when Jerry says ‘‘This is where I get off’’,

followed by Osgood’s ‘‘Oh, you don’t get off that easy’’, whereby a term in one


FE (get off) is echoed in another FE. The screenplay title is elicited on page 30,

when Joe asks Sugar whether she plays jazz. She answers ‘‘Yeah. Real hot’’. Joe

responds with ‘‘Oh. Well, I guess some like it hot’’. In many cases Wilder and

Diamond use a FE format, or schema, recurrently, such as ‘‘Just the two of us’’

‘‘Just the two of you?’’ or ‘‘it’s not how long you wait – it’s who you’re waiting

for’’, and later, ‘‘It’s not how long it takes – it’s who’s taking you’’. In anotherrepetition trope, the characters refer to the ‘‘fuzzy end’’ or the ‘‘sweet end’’ of the

lollipop several times throughout the screenplay, wistfully commenting on their

good or bad luck. This practice of repetition has been discussed by Becker (1984)

and by Tannen (1989), who argued that ‘‘repetition and variations facilitate

comprehension by providing semantically less dense discourse’’ (p. 49). Tannen

reviews the comparable repetition strategies in ‘‘public speaking, oratory, and

drama’’ (p. 3).

7. Discussion

7.1. Quantitative findings

Nearly one fourth of the phrases and sentences in SLIH are speech for-

mulas, idioms, and proverbs. Of these, the majority (76%) are single occur-

rences of expression types. These findings agree with others, with differencespertaining to varying goals and methodologies. Using criteria similar to ours,

Sorhus (1977) reported about 20% formulaic expressions in a Canadian sample

of spontaneous speech. Using computer-search criteria, Altenberg (1991, 1998)

estimated that London-Lund Corpus (Greenbaum and Svartik, 1990) contained

80% recurrent word-combinations. Soskin and John (1963) found that 75% of

expressions were other than information statements, but their classification

system was based on meaning and intention of the speaker, while ours was

based on formal and functional (utility in the conversational structure) criteria.In agreement with our findings in the screenplay, Moon (1998b) reports that

‘‘simple formulae’’ are the most frequent overall. Str€assler (1982) counted about

one idiom in every four and one half minutes of text, a lower rate than

SLIH, which yielded one idiom every 1.2 min. Overall, all studies reviewed

indicate that formulaic expressions constitute a significant proportion of

discourse.

Results from the survey study indicated that canonical forms of formulaic

expressions are part of the competence of native speakers. These findings are inagreement with �S�ıpo�s (1984), who reported that, as probes, ‘‘verbatim’’ words in

idioms lead to higher scores in recognition memory testing than words repre-

senting the meaning of idioms. In our survey study, more successful completion

of the missing words of FEs than novel expressions is probably represents the

idiom completion effect, a well established observation in word association studies

(Palermo and Jenkins, 1964; Clark, 1970; Church and Hanks, 1990).


7.2. Comparisons with natural speech

Measures from SLIH are obviously limited in their generalizability to usage in

everyday human language, as they are from an artistic dialog, not actual con-

versation. Comparisons between constructed and spontaneous conversational talk

reveal interesting similarities and differences in presence of formulaic expressions.In a review of transcriptions of actual, natural conversation, consisting of un-

scripted telephone calls using nonsouthern American English (CALLHOME,

2000), a large set of similar FEs was observed with, as in the screenplay, the

largest portion being speech formulas. However, depending on topic and speak-

ers, counts of FEs ranged widely. We closely examined two unscripted telephone

conversations, one a conversation about boyfriends between two females and the

other between two males discussing investment banking. In the first conversation,

95 or 48% of the utterances were FEs; in the conversation between businesspersons, only 24% of the utterances were. Further, in all the natural speech texts

examined, there are more word and phrase repetitions, sentence fragments, and

pause fillers (e.g., like, ya know, um, well) than observed in SLIH. Lacking these

features of normal conversation, the incidence of nonnovel speech in SLIH is

probably lower than natural dialog, depending on the items counted. Factors

such as gender and socioeconomic status of the conversational partners, their

topics, and the level of formality or intimacy of their talk have been reported

affect the frequency and type of FEs in other natural corpora (e.g., Swales, 1990;Moon, 1998b; Str€assler, 1982), and pause-fillers are often more common. These

variables affecting usage in natural speech may be muted in conversation written

for the theatre.

7.3. Validity of SLIH corpus

Given the difficulties that idioms, formulas and proverbs are known to create for

second language speakers (Wray, 1999a,b; Cornell, 1999; Howarth, 1998; Verstraten,1992; Tannen, 1980; Moon, 1992; Van Lancker-Sidtis, 2003), it is interesting to note

that both screenwriters of SLIH emigrated from Europe and were not native

speakers of English. Billy Wilder was born in 1906 in Austria, and in 1934, at the age

of 27, he moved to Hollywood (Lally, 1996; Farber, 1979). Wilder already had an

intense interest in Americana; according to his biographers, Wilder’s mother

‘‘Americanized’’ the young boy very early on (Zolotow, 1978). Wilder’s coauthor,

I.A.L. Diamond, emigrated to the US from Romania at the age of nine; he was

educated in New York.It is tempting to speculate that the playful exchange between literal and

nonliteral meanings in numerous FEs is attributable to the keener insights into

speech formulas, idioms, and proverbs sometimes granted the second language

speaker, for whom the expressions may be more ‘‘transparent’’, or composi-

tionally stored. On the other hand, Some Like It Hot has been called a ‘‘comic

masterpiece’’ (Dick, 1996). The authors were brilliant at constructing the

screenplay as an art form, and the art in their language may be attributable


simply to their genius. Even more interestingly, sociolinguists have claimed that

living conversation naturally contains devices seen in the language arts as much

as art imitates life. Tannen (1989) and others have argued that normal con-

versation contains strategies that are elaborated in literature. She writes that

‘‘. . .ordinary conversation is made up of linguistic strategies that have been

thought quintessentially literary’’ (p. 1). Strategies of repetition are noted in bothnormal conversation and literature, partially as ‘‘involvement strategies’’ (sig-

naling rapport in conversation); a major sources of this practice of repetition is

FEs.

7.4. Ambiguity and flexibility in formulaic language

The fully contained discourse unit of the screenplay permitted an opportunity to

develop methodologies for identifying, classifying, and quantifying more or lessfixed, formulaic phrases in speech. Problems arise in confidently classifying the ex-

pressions, since FEs may belong to more than one category. Moon (1998a) reported

that 25% of expressions surveyed in her corpora could be assigned to two categories.

Further, it is also obvious that most expressions are not actually frozen, but occur in

various flexible shapes (Tannen, 1989), so that discretion in classifying formulaic

expressions must be used.

Much effort has been expended in trying to describe degrees of decomposability in

idioms as one class of formulaic language (e.g., Nunberg et al., 1994;. Gibbs andNayak, 1989). Arguments are over whether or not idioms are decomposable, in what

way, and how subclasses of decomposability are formed. There can be no question

about the flexibility of ready-made utterances or schemata (Lyons, 1968). These have

a fixed scaffolding into which a paradigmatic set of words can occur. Examples are

‘‘A few _______ short of a ______’’; If you had my/his ______, you’d be ______,

too’’; I’m (not) a ________ person’’. Many of these formulaic structures appear in

the dialog, with the expected play on theme and context. One such example is ‘‘What

are you, aðnÞ x’’ which occurs as ‘‘What are you, a couple of comedians’’ on p. 7; or‘‘This xx isn’t big enough for xx’’ showing up as ‘‘This beach ain’t big enough for the

both of us’’ on p. 117.

7.5. The dual processing model of language

Questions have been raised about how these types of utterances fit into the

larger category of formulaic expressions. The dual processing model accommo-

dates these expressions and all the observations about flexibility and decompos-ability by proposing two integrated processes. In this model, the speaker’s

competence includes a large repertory of recognizable canonical forms which can

at anytime be subjected to the legal operations of generative rules. Normal lan-

guage ability consists of two distinct processes (Sinclair, 1987, 1991; Van Lancker,

2001a,b), one generating combinations of lexical items utilizing freely applied

grammatical rules, and the other, a bringing forth of prefabricated verbal as-

semblages and routines.


It is likely that competencies for formulaic versus novel expression are

subserved by different mental processes and neurological structures. Idioms,

recognized in their canonical forms as ‘‘chunks’’, behave in short term memory

on a par, with respect to unit size, with single words or syllables in English

(Simon, 1974), as well as in a language with a very different writing system,

Chinese, whether presented in the auditory or written mode (Simon et al.,1989). Ability to use formulaic versus novel expressions is affected differently

by brain damage (Hughlings Jackson, 1874, 1915; Van Lancker, 2001c, 2003).

There are likely properties of right hemisphere function, such as pattern

recognition, context sensitivity and emotional experiencing that favor process-

ing of FEs (Van Lancker and Ohnesorge, 2002), as well as motor program-

ming ability of the basal ganglia that may underlie use of overlearned

expressions.

Competency for formulaic versus novel expressions unfolds according to dispa-rate maturational schedules in child language acquisition (Kempler et al., 1999).

Interplay of these holophrases – whole constructions having complex meanings –

with linguistically reanalyzed forms has been identified in child language learn-

ing (Peters, 1977; Corsaro, 1979; Gleason and Weintraub, 1976; Locke, 1997; Wong

Fillmore, 1979). Bolinger (1975) described the child language learning process as

holistic at first, and later words ‘‘are differentiated out of larger wholes’’ (p. 100).

In conclusion, converging evidence from analysis of natural speech corpora,

psycholinguistic studies in adults and children, and neurolinguistic observationssupports a model describing two linguistic processes, which might be called ‘‘com-

positional and configurational’’, represented by novel and formulaic expressions, re-

spectively. The study of novel utterances has received significant attention in the

recent history of linguistic study. A more balanced understanding of language be-

havior will follow a better appreciation of FE usage, and greater insight into the

interaction between FEs and novel expressions.

Acknowledgements

Numerous people have contributed to various stages of this project, especially

Raquel Gabriel, Kristin Greenan, John Locke, Megan McAlpine, Michelle Marti-

nez, Varsha Pilbrow, John Sidtis, Charles Sprague, Lisa Tafuro, Rachel Wolf, survey

informants, and the students in the ‘‘Neurolinguistic Perspectives on Nonliteral

Language’’ class at Carleton College, Northfield, MN (Winter, 1998).

Appendix A

Formulaic expressions from Some Like It Hot, listed by item number (first oc-currence) and set number (1–21) in the screen play. Each set is made up of 100 lines

of text. The category (formula, idiom, proverb) and number of occurrences (count)

are included in the last two columns.

Item # Set # Formulaic expression Categ Count

140 4 All aboard, All aboard f 1105 4 All expenses paid f 1

1 1 All right f 20

470 19 All those little people f 1

153 5 Am I glad to see you girls f 1

109 4 And while you’re at it f 1

143 5 Are you crazy? f 1

318 11 Aren’t you a little too young for

that?

f 1

291 10 Aren’t you a sweetheart f 1

274 9 As a matter of fact f 3

138 4 As far away as possible f 1

499 21 As good as dead f 1

139 4 At a time like this? f 1

150 5 Atta girl f 2

316 10 Believe you me f 1

239 8 Bingo f 1473 19 Bon voyage f 2

74 2 Boy f 1

228 8 Break it up f 1

510 21 But there are laws–conventions f 1

317 10 Bye f 1

86 3 Can we talk to you? f 1

71 2 Come back here! f 1

332 11 Come in f 281 2 Come on f 23

233 8 Come on in f 1

125 4 Come on out of there f 1

428 17 Congratulations. f 1

75 2 Did I ever! f 1

516 21 Do yourself a favor f 1

455 18 Don’t call us – we’ll call you f 1

102 3 Don’t crowd me f 1421 16 Don’t fight it f 1

172 6 Don’t get me started on that f 1

128 4 Don’t I know you from

somewhere?

f 1

39 1 Don’t look now f 1

378 14 Don’t worry f 5

491 20 Easy now f 1

112 4 Everybody hands up and facethe wall

f 1

230 8 Everybody out f 1


Appendix A (continued )


110 4 Fill’er up f 1

32 1 First thing tomorrow f 2

488 20 First thing we got to do is get

out of these clothes

f 1

492 20 For he’s a jolly good fellow

which nobody can deny

f 1

310 10 Forget it f 2

88 3 Get out of here! f 1

64 2 Give me a chance f 1

14 1 Give me five minutes f 1

17 1 Good evening f 2

427 16 Good morning f 2

196 6 Good night f 9

89 3 Good-bye f 5380 14 Got it. f 1

351 12 Haven’t I seen you somewhere

before?

f 1

498 20 He still has a lot to learn f 1

446 18 Hello f 3

289 10 Help yourself f 1

333 11 Here you are f 1

495 20 He’s a man who’ll go far f 1496 20 He’s gone too far f 1

25 1 How about that one? f 1

30 1 How can you be so selfish? f 1

412 16 How can you think of food at a

time like this?

f 1

4 1 I already told you f 1

193 6 I beg your pardon f 3

72 2 I can explain everything f 1174 6 I can stop any time I want to f 1

247 9 I can tell you one thing f 1

61 2 I can’t go on f 1

466 19 I can’t make it tonight f 1

376 14 I didn’t mean any harm f 1

483 20 I don’t know f 1

118 4 I don’t know what you’re

talking about

f 1

403 15 I don’t mind if I do f 1

346 12 I don’t think so f 1

411 16 I don’t want to bore you f 1

120 4 I had nothing to do with it f 1




375 13 I hope so f 1

368 13 I just can’t wait to see her face f 1424 16 I never knew it could be like this f 1

83 3 I ought to fire you f 1

281 10 I ought to slug you f 1

218 7 I tell you f 1

123 4 I think that I’m gonna be sick f 1

55 2 I told you f 1

188 6 I warned you! f 1

315 10 I work here f 1445 18 If I ever saw one f 1

22 1 If you gotta go – this is the way

to do it

f 11

416 16 If you insist f 1

50 2 If you want to f 1

361 12 I’ll catch up with you f 1

78 2 I’ll make it up to you f 1

29 1 I’ll say f 2101 3 I’ll think of something f 1

417 16 I’m afraid not f 2

422 16 I’m not quite sure f 1

265 9 I’m not well at all f 1

263 9 I’m sorry f 1

344 11 I’m terribly sorry f 1

284 10 Isn’t she a sweetheart? f 1

215 7 Isn’t that ridiculous? f 1377 14 it was just a little joke f 1

56 2 It’s a sure thing f 1

364 13 It’s been delightful meeting you

both

f 1

158 5 It’s entirely mutual f 1

144 5 It’s no use f 1

402 15 It’s not how long it takes – it’s

who’s taking you

f 1

397 15 It’s not how long you wait – it’s

who you’re waiting for

f 1

227 8 It’s not my fault f 1

210 7 It’s nothing f 1

400 15 It’s sort of funny f 1

419 16 *It’s terribly sweet of you to

want to help out – but it’s no use

f 1

113 4 Join us! f 1




435 17 Just a minute f 1

116 4 Just dropped in to pay myrespects

f 1

312 10 Just my feminine intuition f 1

113 4 Just the two of us f 2

136 4 Let’s blow f 2

324 11 Let’s get out of here f 2

43 1 Let’s go f 1

155 5 Likewise, I’m sure f 1

288 10 May I? f 1504 21 My compliments to the chef f 1

345 11 My fault f 1

48 2 Never heard of him f 1

225 8 Never mind f 1

243 8 Next thing you know f 1

198 6 Nighty-night f 1

512 21 No guy is worth it f 1

305 10 No thank you f 1335 11 No thanks f 1

126 4 None of our business f 1

163 5 None of that rough talk f 1

269 9 Not at all f 1

95 3 Now you’re talking! f 1

167 5 Now you’ve done it f 1

53 2 Of course f 1

238 8 Oh, brother! f 166 2 Oh, no! f 1

386 14 Oh-zowie! f 1

8 1 Okay f 12

179 6 One false move f 1

448 18 One of these days f 1

190 6 Pardon me f 1

304 10 Please f 2

513 21 Pleased to meet you f 127 1 Respect for the dead f 1

77 2 Right? f 4

360 12 Run along f 1

246 8 See what I mean? f 1

178 6 See you around f 1

54 2 Shut up f 2

463 19 So good to hear your voice

again

f 1




350 12 So long f 1

487 20 So what do we do now? f 1501 21 So what’s a few months between

friends?

f 1

264 9 Something I ate f 1

467 19 Something unexpected came up f 1

24 1 Sorry f 2

187 6 Speak up f 1

200 6 Steady, boy f 1

221 7 Sure f 257 2 Ten to one f 1

168 5 Terribly sorry f 2

59 2 Thank you f 9

156 5 Thank you ever so f 1

270 9 Thanks f 3

321 11 That dirty old man f 1

52 2 That solves one problem f 1

214 7 That’s ridiculous f 2169 5 That’s alright f 1

464 19 That’s funny f 2

383 14 That’s good thinking f 1

394 15 That’s it for tonight folks f 1

450 18 That’s life f 1

104 3 That’s no way to talk f 1

231 8 That’s right f 2

320 11 That’s the way I like ’em f 16 1 That’s very refreshing f 1

82 2 The last heard f 1

371 13 The most wonderful thing

happened

f 1

460 18 The way I figure is f 1

503 21 There was something in that

cake that didn’t agree with them

f 1

216 7 There-isn’t that better? f 1508 21 They can’t get away f 1

456 18 They’re on to us f 1

343 11 This beach ain’t big enough for

the both of us

f 1

223 8 This is a private party. . . f 1

2 1 This the joint? f 1

20 1 This way f 1

28 1 Tonight’s the night f 1




121 4 Too bad f 1

199 6 Toodle-oo f 1159 5 Upsy-daisy f 1

92 3 Wait a minute f 5

165 5 Watch it f 1

90 3 We could pass for that f 1

395 15 Well I’ll be f 2

9 1 We’re all set f 1

166 5 We’re on a diet! f 1

308 10 What a heel he was f 173 2 What a heel! f 1

278 9 What are we going to do about

it?

f 1

328 11 What are you talking about? f 1

341 11 What do you think you are

doing?

f 3

413 16 What else is there for me? f 1

257 9 What happened? f 1303 10 What kind of girl do you think I

am

f 1

311 10 What makes you so sure? f 1

23 1 what’ll it be f 1

259 9 What’s going on around here? f 1

226 8 What’s going on here? f 1

262 9 What’s the big idea? f 1

440 18 What’s the idea? f 1482 20 What’s the matter f 1

237 8 What’s the matter with you? f 1

10 1 When is the kickoff? f 1

131 4 Where do you think you’re

going?

f 1

146 5 Who are we kidding? f 1

429 17 Who’s the lucky girl? f 1

392 14 Why do I let you talk me intothese things?

f 1

213 7 Why you poor thing. . . f 1

108 4 Wise guys f 1

363 13 Would you mind moving along,

please?

f 1

268 9 Would you mind terribly? f 1

132 4 You ain’t going nowhere f 1

217 7 You all right? f 1




16 1 You bet! f 1

334 11 You betcha f 1373 13 You can do better than that f 2

430 17 You can’t be serious! f 1

300 10 You don’t get off that easy f 1

117 4 You don’t owe me no nothing f 1

292 10 You don’t say f 3

387 14 You got it made f 1

148 5 You talked me into it! f 1

147 5 You talked me into something f 1170 5 You won’t tell anybody, will

you?

f 1

160 5 You’ll be sorry f 1

209 7 You’re a real pal f 1

42 1 You’re all under arrest f 1

442 18 You’re clean f 1

420 16 You’re not giving yourself a

chance

f 1

431 17 You’re out of your mind! f 1

31 1 You’re right f 1

357 12 You’re very kind f 1

157 5 You’re welcome f 1

296 10 Zowie! f 2

224 8 A party for two i 1

472 19 Anchors aweigh i 1

184 6 And put a little heat under it i 1309 10 And was I ever crazy about him i 1

331 11 Are you decent? i 1

393 14 Beat it buster i 1

273 9 Better break it to you gently i 1

44 1 Big joke i 1

171 5 Boot me out of the band i 1

180 6 Borrow a cup of that sugar i 1

192 6 Caught dead i 1409 16 Complete washout i 1

256 9 Cut it out i 1

340 11 Cut that out! i 1

339 11 Don’t get burned i 1

232 8 Don’t be a flat tire i 1

279 10 Don’t get sore i 1

404 15 Down the hatch i 1

388 14 Fat chance i 1




276 9 Feel my heart like a crazy drum i 1

98 3 For a one night stand? i 1195 6 From the top again i 1

46 2 Fronting for you i 1

152 5 Get a move on i 1

319 11 Get lost i 1

474 19 Getting his tail out of here i 1

253 9 Going to catch yourself a rich

bird?

i 1

181 6 Goose it up a little i 1267 9 He snores to beat the band i 1

34 1 He’s a shoo-in i 1

177 6 I always get the fuzzy end of the

lollipop

i 1

11 1 I better blow now i 1

520 21 I forgive you i 1

241 8 I get goose pimply all over i 1

35 1 I got the word I 1119 4 I hate to see them go to waste i 1

58 2 I ought to have my head

examined

i 1

91 3 I ought to wring her neck i 1

423 16 I think you are on the right

track

i 1

208 7 I wish I were dead i 2

367 13 I’d watch my step i 1485 20 I’ll bust out crying i 1

85 3 I’ll give you a little tingle i 1

385 14 I’m a push-over i 1

465 19 I’m afraid not i 1

175 6 I’m blue i 1

457 18 I’m just going to die of shame i 1

330 11 I’m keeping an eye on you i 1

277 9 I’m mad for you i 1248 9 I’m tired of getting the fuzzy end

of the lollipop

i 1

211 7 In the middle of nowhere i 1

93 3 It’s gone to his head i 1

12 1 It’s Goodbye Charlie i 1

323 11 It’s like waving a red flag in

front of a bull

i 1

408 15 It’s more like a mental block i 1




481 20 It’s on the level this time i 1

18 1 I’ve been on the wagon i 1287 10 Just a moment i 1

302 10 Keep your eyes on the road. i 1

127 4 Knock each other off i 1

106 4 Knock it off i 1

337 11 Let her soak i 1

490 20 Let’s look at the record i 1

434 17 Let’s not be hasty i 1

475 19 Let’s shove off i 1183 6 Let’s take it from the top i 1

65 2 Living like kings i 1

115 4 Long time no see i 1

36 1 Look at those odds i 1

401 15 Looks like they’re on the wrong

track

i 1

251 9 Makes a girl think i 2

285 10 More millionaires than you canshake a stick at

i 1

240 8 My spine turns to custard i 1

220 7 No fair guessing i 1

480 20 Nothing up my sleeve i 1

162 5 Now cut that out i 1

322 11 Now you know how the other

half lives

i 1

234 8 Pipe down i 1519 21 Pour it on i 1

293 10 Pull in your reel i 1

245 8 Pull yourself together i 1

384 14 Push over for him i 1

142 5 Quit stalling i 1

354 12 Real hot i 1

5 1 Refresh my memory i 1

63 2 Running a fever i 1258 9 Search me i 1

197 6 Sleep tight i 1

355 12 Some like it hot i 1

494 20 Somebody to fill my shoes i 1

453 18 Something tells me the omelet is

about to hit the fan

i 1

37 1 Suppose you get hit by a truck? i 1

242 8 Thank goodness i 1




396 15 That’s the berries i 1

176 6 That’s the story of my life i 1469 19 That’s the way the oil gushes i 1

275 9 The moth and the flame i 1

249 9 The natives are getting restless i 1

133 4 The only way you’ll get to

Urbana is feet first

i 1

236 8 The party’s over i 1

484 20 The place is crawling with

mobsters

i 1

517 21 The sweet end of the lollipop i 1

40 1 The whole town is under water! i 1

15 1 Then hit ’em with everything

you’ve got

i 1

252 9 They all go south for the winter i 1

471 19 They must be worth their weight

in gold

i 1

506 21 They slipped right through ourhands

i 1

486 20 They wouldn’t be caught dead i 1

164 5 This is like falling into a tub of

butter

i 1

189 6 This is the last straw i 1

219 7 This is the only way to travel i 1

299 10 This is where I get off i 1

410 16 Throws somebody a dirty curve i 1462 19 Usually you leave’em with

nothing but a kick in the teeth

i 1

295 10 Wanna bet i 1

191 6 We got time off for good

behavior

i 1

103 3 We ought to wring your neck i 1

134 4 We won’t breath a word i 1

454 18 We wouldn’t be caught dead i 162 2 Weak from hunger i 1

145 5 We’ll never get away with it i 1

173 6 We’ll take a rain check i 1

137 4 We’ll take care of those guys

later

i 1

212 7 We’re in cahoots i 1

329 11 We’re just like sisters i 1

353 12 We’re only doing this for a lark i 1




452 18 We’re really cooking i 1

68 2 We’re up the creek i 187 3 What are you a couple of

comedians?

i 1

443 18 Where did you pick up that

cheap trick?

i 1

38 1 Why do you paint everything so

black?

i 1

254 9 Wind up with the sweet end of

the lollipop

i 1

352 12 With all that unrest in the world i 1

389 14 You can both take a flying jump i 1

69 2 You got a lot of nerve i 1

489 20 You made the right choice i 1

67 2 You out of your mind? i 1

154 5 You saved our lives i 1

97 3 You should excuse the

expression

i 1

505 21 You want to make a Federal

case out of it?

i 1

294 10 You’re barking up the wrong

fish

i 1

479 20 You’re not pulling one of your

old tricks

i 1

94 3 You’ve flipped your wig i 1

449 18 Get it while you’re young p 1399 15 It’s the thought that counts p 1

521 21 Nobody’s perfect p 1

500 21 To err is human, to forgive

divine

p 1

438 18 We all gotta go sometime p 1

497 20 You can’t keep a good man

down

p 1

451 18 You can’t make an omeletwithout breaking an egg

p 1


Appendix B

Survey: Response Sheet for Recall Task. For the reader, answers and category

type are added in the right hand columns.

Directions: For each of the expressions below, please fill-in the the blank with one

word, guessing even if you’re not sure.

Practice questions Answers F/N

A. What’s the big _____? idea FB. She doesn’t ______ of girls who smoke approve N

C. The party’s _____ over F

D. So you got ______ in the elevator? pinched N

Test

(1) Give me five minutes-then _______ ’em

with everything you got

hit F

(2) I’ve been ___________ seven or eight

times

married N

(3) How can you be so __________? selfish F

(4) __________ up, will you? Shut F

(5) I ought to have my __________ examined! head F(6) __________view of what? your N

(7) I’m running a __________ fever F

(8) I can explain __________ everything F

(9) I’m ___________ sick not N

(10) I’ll make it up to __________ you F

(11) __________ out of here get F

(12) You’ve __________ your wig! flipped F

(13) I thought you said three __________ years N(14) I’ll___________ of something think F

(15) __________ it off, will you? Knock F

(16) I don’t know what you are _________

about

talking F

(17) Where do you __________ you’re going? think F

(18) Now __________ done it! you’ve F

(19) That’s a quarter of a___________ century N

(20) We’ll take a rain __________ check F(21) This is the __________ straw last F

(22) I __________ I were dead wish F

(23) I’m just__________ to get some ice going N

(24) I can’t __________ myself trust N

(25) Why you __________thing poor F

(26) Don’t be a __________ tire flat F

(27) Cut it __________ girls out F

(28) You better put on the __________ lights N(29) I better break it to you __________ gently F

(30) __________ you a sweetheart Aren’t F

(31) And __________ your eyes on the road keep F

(32) You better go __________ it fix N

(33) Are my seams __________? straight N

(34) Let’s get__________ of here out F


Appendix B (continued )

Test Answers F/N

(35) Some __________ it hot like F

(36) I __________ your pardon? beg F(37) I’ll carry the ___________ instruments N

(38) I’d __________ my step watch F

(39) Put some___________ on her neck ice N

(40) You can _________ better than that do F

(41) Yes, we’re the __________ girls new N

(42) Just the__________ of us two F

(43) It’s the __________ that counts thought F

(44) I __________ mind if I do don’t F(45) Like everybody’s__________ at me looking N

(46) All right, if you ___________ insist F

(47) They got the__________ fiddle bull N

(48) You __________ be serious! can’t F

(49) Then you won’t be needing your

__________

car N

(50) You’re out of your __________! mind F

(51) Get it__________ you’re young while F(52) We wouldn’t be __________ dead caught F

(53) You’re the __________shape wrong N

(54) We could__________ our hair dye N

(55) I’m just going to die of __________ shame F

(56) Something unexpected __________ up came F

(57) As a __________ of fact matter F

(58) Somebody to __________ my shoes fill F

(59) We’ll all be __________ fired N(60) You can’t keep a __________ man down good F

(61) They slipped __________ through our

hands

right F

(62) So I had to__________ him to the hospital

and give him a transfusion

rush N

(63) What do you think you’re __________? doing F

(64) __________ to meet you pleased F

(65) We got __________ information different N(66) It’s not __________ fault my F

(67) Will ten __________ be enough? cups N

(68) The natives are __________ restless getting F

(69) Get __________, will you? lost F

(70) Haven’t I seen you __________ before? somewhere F

(71) Imeanweget __________ tonight, don’twe? paid N

(72) __________ afraid not I’m F


Appendix B (continued )

Test Answers F/N

(73) I don’t believe I’ve __________ you at any

of our services

seen N

(74) Wait a __________ minute F

(75) You’ll be___________ sorry N


References

Achebe, C., 1958. Things Fall Apart. Heineman, London.

Akmajian, A., Demers, R.A., Harnish, R.M., 1984. Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and

Communication, second ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Alexander, R.J., 1978. Fixed expressions in English: linguistic, psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and

didactic study (Part I). Anglistik und Englischunterricht 6, 171–188.

Altenberg, B., 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: the evidence of recurrent word-combinations.

In: Cowie, A.P. (Ed.), Phraseology. Clarenden Press, Oxford, pp. 101–124.

Altenberg, B., 1991. The London-Lund corpus: research and applications. In: Using corpora. UW Centre

for the New OED, Oxford, pp. 71–83.

Arnaud, P., Moon, R.E., 1993. Fr�equence et emploi des proverbes anglais et franc�ais. In: Plantin, C. (Ed.),Lieux Communs: Topo€ıi, St�er�eotypes, Clich�es. Kime, Paris, pp. 323–341.

Baev, K., 1997. Highest level automatisms in the nervous system: a theory of functional

principles underlying the highest forms of brain function. Progress in Neurobiology 51, 129–

166.

Becker, A.L., 1984. The linguistics of peculiarity: interpreting superordinating in a Javanese text. In:

Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California,

Berkeley, CA, pp. 425–436.

Blanken, G., Marini, V., 1997. Where do lexical speech automatisms come from? Journal of

Neurolinguistics 10, 19–31.

Blanken, G., Wallesch, E.-W., Papagno, C., 1990. Dissociations of language functions in aphasics with

speech automatisms (recurring utterances). Cortex 26, 41–63.

Bolinger, D., 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 1–14.

Bolinger, D., 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37.3, 366–381.

Bolinger, D., 1977. Idioms have relations. Forum Linguisticum 2 (2), 157–169.

Bolinger, D., 1975. Aspects of Language. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, New York.

Botelho da Silva, T., Cutler, A., 1993. Ill-formedness and transformability in Portuguese idioms. In:

Cacciari, C., Tabossi, P. (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Lawrence Erlbaum,

Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 129–143.

Burgess, C., Chiarello, C., 1996. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying metaphor comprehension and

other figurative language. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 11/1, 67–84.

CALLHOME. American English Transcripts, Linguistic Data Corporation. Available from <http://

www.ldc.upenn.edu/index.html>.

Castle, A., Auiler, D., (Eds.). 2001. Billy Wilder’s Some Like It Hot. K€ıoln, Taschen GmbH.

Cerm�ak, F., 1994. Idiomatics. In: Leulsdorff, P.A. (Ed.), Prague School of Structural and Functional

Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 85–195.

Chafe, W., 1968. Idiomaticity as an anomaly in the Chomskyan paradigm. Foundations of Language 4,

109–127.

Chomsky, N., 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Church, K., Hanks, P., 1990. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography.

Computational Linguistics 16 (3), 22–29.

http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/index.html

http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/index.html


Clark, H.H., 1970. Word associations and linguistic theory. In: Lyons, J. (Ed.), New Horizons in

Linguistics. Penguin Books, Baltimore, pp. 271–286.

Code, C., 1982. Neurolinguistic analysis of recurrent utterance in aphasia. Cortex 18, 141–152.

Code, C., 1987. Language, Aphasia, and the Right Hemisphere. Wiley, London.

Code, C., 1989. Speech automatisms and recurring utterances. In: Code, C. (Ed.), The Characteristics of

Aphasia. Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 155–177.

Cooper, W.E., Ross, J.R., 1975. World order. Notes From the Parasession on Functionalism. Papers from

the Twelfth Regional Meeting Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

Cornell, A., 1999. Idioms: an approach to identifying major pitfalls for learners. IRAL 37, 1–22.

Corsaro, W., 1979. We’re friends, right. Children’s use of access rituals in a nursery school. Language in

Society 8, 315–336.

Coulmas, F., 1981. Conversational Routine: Exploration in Standard Communication Situations and

Prepatterned Speech. Hague, Mouton.

Coulmas, F., 1994. Formulaic language. In: Asher, R.E. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics.

Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 1292–1293.

Cowie, A.P., 1992. Multiword lexical units and communicative language teaching. In: Arnaud, P., Bejoint,

H. (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. Macmillan, London, pp. 1–12.

Cummings, J.L., 1993. Frontal-subcortical circuits and human behavior. Archives of Neurology 50, 873–

880.

Cutting, J.C., Bock, K., 1997. That’s the way the cookie bounces: syntactic and semantic components of

experimentally elicited idiom blends. Memory-Cognition 25 (1), 57–71.

Dick, B.F., 1996. Billy Wilder. Da Capo Press, New York.

Drew, P., Holt, E., 1988. Complainable matters: the use of idiomatic expressions in making complaints.

Social Problems 35, 398–417.

Duncan, S., Niederehe, G., 1974. On signalling that it’s your turn to speak. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 10, 234–247.

Farber, S., 1979. Billy Wilder. In: Coursodon, J.-P. (Ed.), American Directors. McGraw-Hill, New York,

pp. 366–387.

Fillmore, C., 1979. On fluency. In: Fillmore, C.J., Kempler, D., Wang, W.S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual

Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. Academic Press, London, pp. 85–102.

Fillmore, C., Kay, P., O’Connor, M., 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: the

case of ‘let alone’. Language 64, 501–538.

Gallahorn, G.E., 1971. The use of taboo words by psychiatric ward personnel. Psychiatry 34, 309–321.

Gardner, H., Brownell, H.H., Wapner, W., Michelow, D., 1983. Missing the point: the role of the right

hemisphere in the processing of complex linguistic materials. In: Perecman, E. (Ed.), Cognitive

Processing in the Right Hemisphere. Academic Press, New York, pp. 169–192.

Gibbs, R.W., 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge

University Press, New York.

Gibbs Jr., R.W., Nayak, N.P., 1989. Psycholinguistic studies on the syntactic behavior of idioms.

Cognitive Psychology 21, 100–138.

Glassman, L., Grinberg, D., Hibbard, C., Meehan, J., Reid, L.G., van Leunen, M.-C. 1992. Hector:

connecting words with definitions. SRC Report 92a; Digital Equipment Corporation Systems Research

Center, Palo Alto, CA.

Gleason, J.B., Weintraub, S., 1976. The acquisition of routines in child language. Language in Society 5,

129–136.

Glucksberg, S., 1991. Beyond literal meanings: the psychology of allusion. Psychological Science 2 (3),

146–152.

Graesser, A., Person, N., Johnston, G.S., 1996. Three obstacles in empirical research on aesthetic and

literary comprehension. In: Kreuz, R.J., MacNealy, M.S. (Eds.), Empirical Approaches to Literature

and Aesthetics, Vol. 52 in Advances in Discourse Processes (Roy O. Freedle, Ed.). Ablex Publishing

Corporation, Norwood, NJ, pp. 3–21.

Graves, R., Landis, T., 1985. Hemispheric control of speech expression in aphasia. Archives of Neurology

42, 249–251.


Greenbaum, S., Svartik, J., 1990. The London-Lund corpus of spoken English. In: Svartik, J. (Ed.), The

London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund University Press, Lund, pp.

11–45.

Hain, M., 1951. Sprichwort und Volkssprache. Giessen, Wilhelm Schmitz Verlag.

Hoffman, R., Kemper, S., 1987. What could reaction-time studies be telling us about metaphor

comprehension? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 2, 149–186.

Honeck, R.P., 1997. A Proverb in Mind. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

Hopper, P., 1988. Emergent grammar and the a priori grammar postulate. In: Tannen, D. (Ed.),

Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 117–

134.

Horowitz, L.M., Manelis, L., 1973. Recognition and cued recall of idioms and phrases. Journal of

Experimental Psychology 100, 291–296.

Howarth, P., 1998. The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In: Cowie, A.P. (Ed.), Phraseology.

Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 161–188.

Hughlings Jackson, J., 1874. On the nature of the duality of the brain. Reprinted in J. Taylor (Ed.), Selected

Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, vol. 2, 1932. Hodder and Stoughton, London, pp. 129–145.

Hughlings Jackson, J., 1915. On affections of speech from diseases of the brain. Brain 38, 101–186.

Jackendoff, R., 1995. The boundaries of the lexicon. In: Everaert, M., van der Linden, E.J., Schenk, A.,

Schreuder, R. (Eds.), Idioms, Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 133–169.

Jay, T.B., 1980. Sex roles and dirty word usage: a review of the literature and a reply to Haas.

Psychological Bulletin 88 (3), 614–621.

Jespersen, O., 1933. Essentials of English Grammar. George Allen and Unwin, Ltd, London.

Katz, J.J., 1973. Compositionality, idiomaticity, and lexical substitution. In: Anderson, S. (Ed.),

Festschrift for Morris Halle. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 357–376.

Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Marchman, V., Bates, E., 1999. Idiom comprehension in children and

adults with unilateral brain damage. Developmental Neuropsychology 15.3, 327–349.

Kempler, D., Van Lancker, D., Read, S., 1988. Proverb and idiom comprehension in Alzheimer disease.

Alzheimer Disease and Associated Disorders 2 (1), 38–49.

Kiparsky, P., 1976. Oral poetry: some linguistic and typological considerations. In: Stolz, B.A., Shannon,

R.S. (Eds.), Oral literature and the Formula. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 73–106.

Klaver, E., 1989. The play of language in Ionesco’s play of chairs. Modern Drama 32, 521–531.

Kuiper, K., 2000. On the linguistic properties of formulaic speech. Oral Tradition 15/2, 279–305.

Koestler, A., 1967. The Ghost in the Machine. MacMillan, Chicago.

Lakoff, R., 1973. The logic of politeness. In: Corum, C., et al. (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional

Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, IL, pp. 292–305.

Lally, K., 1996. Wilder times: The Life of Billy Wilder. Henry Holt and Company, New York.

Lieberman, P., 1963. Some effects of semantic and grammatic context on the production and perception of

speech. Language and Speech 6, 172–187.

Lieberman, P., 2000. Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain: The Subcortical Bases of Speech,

Syntax, and Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Lieberman, P., 2001. Human language and our reptilian brain. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 44,

32–51.

Locke, J., 1997. A theory of neurolinguistic development. Brain and Language 58, 265–326.

Lounsbury, F.G., 1963. Linguistics and Psychology. In: Koch, S. (Ed.), Psychology: Study of a Science.

McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 553–582.

Lyons, J., 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

McCarthy, J.J., in press. Talking back: ‘‘small’’ interactional response tokens in everyday conversation.

Research on Language and Social Interaction. Special issue on Small Talk, In: J. Coupland (Ed.).

McDermott, R.P., Tylbor, H., 1983. On the necessity of collusion in conversation. Text 3 (3), 277–297.

Makkai, A., 1972. Idiom Structure in English. Hague, Mouton.

Marsden, C.D., 1982. The mysterious motor function of the basal ganglia: the Robert Wartenberg lecture.

Neurology 32, 514–539.


Matisoff, J., 1979. Blessing, curses, hopes, and fears: psychoostensive expressions in Yiddish. Institute for

Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia.

Mieder, W., 1984. Investigations of Proverbs, Proverbial Expressions, Quotations and Clich�es: A

Bibliography of Explanatory Essays Which Have Appeared in Notes and Queries. P. Lang, Bern.

Mieder, W., 1978. Proverbial slogans are the name of the game. Kentucky Folklore Record 24, 49–53.

Moon, R.E., 1992. Textual aspects of fixed expressions in learners’ dictionaries. In: Arnaud, P., B�ejoint, H.

(Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. Macmillan, London, pp. 13–27.

Moon, R.E., 1998a. Fixed expressions and text: a study of the distribution and textual behaviour of fixed

expressions in English. Oxford Studies in Lexicology and Lexicography. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Moon, R.E., 1998b. Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In: Cowie, A.P. (Ed.),

Phraseology. Clarenden Press, Oxford, pp. 79–100.

Myers, P., Linebaugh, C.W., 1981. Comprehension of idiomatic expressions by right-hemisphere-damaged

adults. In: Brookshire, R.H. (Ed.), Clinical Aphasiology: Conference Proceedings. BRK Publishers,

Minneapolis, pp. 254–261.

Norrick, N.R., 1985. How Proverbs Mean: Semantic Studies in English Proverbs. Mouton, Berlin.

Nunberg, G., Sag, I., Wasow, T., 1994. Idioms. Language 70, 491–537.

Osgood, C.E., Housain, R., 1974. Salience of the word as a unit in the perception of language. Perception

and Psychophysics 15, 168–192.

Page, D.L., 1959. History and the Homeric Iliad. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Palermo, D., Jenkins, J., 1964. Word Association Norms. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Papagno, C., Vallar,G., 2001.Understandingmetaphors and idioms: a single-case neuropsychological study

in a person with Down syndrome. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 7, 516–528.

Pawley, A., Syder, F.H., 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike

fluency. In: Richards, J.C., Schmidt, R. (Eds.), Language and Communication. Longman, London, pp.

191–225.

Pawley, A., 1985. On speech formulae and linguistic competence. Lenguas Modernas 12, 80–104.

Pawley, A., 1991. How to talk cricket: on linguistic competence in a subject matter. In: Blust, R. (Ed.),

Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Papers on Austronesian Languages and Ethnolinguistics in Honor of

George Grace. Pacific Linguistics C-117, Canberra, pp. 339–368.

Peters, A., 1977. Language-learning strategies: does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language 53,

560–573.

Pickens, J.D., Pollio, H.R., 1979. Patterns of figurative language competence in adult speakers.

Psychological Research 40, 299–313.

Pinker, S., 1995. The Language Instinct. Harper Collins, New York.

Pinker, S., Birdsong, D., 1979. Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 497–508.

Redfern, W., 1989. Clich�es and Coinages. Blackwell, Oxford.

Rothman, C., 1999. A 40-year-old comedy that hasn’t grown stale. The New York Times, New York, NY.

p. 24.

Searle, J.R., 1975. Indirect speech acts. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J.L. (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3.

Academic Press, New York, pp. 59–82.

Schegloff, E., 1988. Discourse as an interactional achievement II: an exercise in conversation analysis. In:

Tannen, D. (Ed.), Linguistics in Context: Connecting Observation and Understanding. Ablex,

Norwood, NY, pp. 135–158.

Schweizer, B.-M., 1978. Sprachspiel mit Idiomen: eine Untersuchung am Prosawerk von G€unter Grass.

Juris Druk Verlag, Z€urich.

Simon, H.A., 1974. How big is a chunk? Science 183, 482–484.

Simon, H.A., Zhang, W., Zang, W., Peng, R., 1989. STM capacity for Chinese words and idioms with

visual and auditory presentations. In: Models of Thought, II. Yale University Press, New Haven and

London, pp. 68–75.

Sinclair, J.M., 1987. Collocation: a progress report. In: Steele, R., Threadgold, T. (Eds.), Language

Topics: Essays in Honor of Michael Halliday, II. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 319–331.

Sinclair, J.M., 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.


�S�ıpo�s, I., 1984. Recognition memory for words versus meaning in idioms and connected discourse. Studia

Psychologica 26, 91–98.

Sorhus, H.B., 1977. To hear ourselves – implications for teaching English as a second language. English

Language Teaching Journal 31 (3), 211–221.

Soskin, W.F., John, V.P., 1963. The study of spontaneous talk. In: Barker, R.G. (Ed.), The Stream of

Behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, pp. 228–282.

Speedie, L.J., Wertman, E., Ta’ir, J., Heilman, K.M., 1993. Disruption of automatic speech following a

right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology 43 (9), 1768–1774.

Str€assler, J., 1982. Idioms in English: A Pragmatic Analysis. Gunter Narr, T€ubingen.

Svartik, J., Quirk, R., 1980. A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund Studies in English. CWK Gleerup,

Lund.

Swales, J., 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Swinney, D., Cutler, A., 1979. The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal

Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 523–534.

Tannen, D., €Oztek, P.C., 1981. Health to our mouths: formulaic expressions in Turkish and Greek. In:

Coulmas, F. (Ed.), Conversational Routine. Hague, Mouton, pp. 37–54.

Tannen, D., 1980. Implications of the oral/literate continuum for cross-cultural communication. In: Alatis,

J.E. (Ed.), Current Issues in Bilingualism. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and

Linguistics. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 326–347.

Tannen, D., 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Taylor, A., 1931. The Proverb. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Templeton, J.M., 1997. Worldwide Laws of Life: 200 Eternal Spiritual Principles. Templeton Foundation

Press, Radnor, PA.

Tilley, M.P., 1950. A Dictionary of Proverbs in England in the 16th and 17th Centuries. University of

Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Trask, R.L., 1995. Language: The Basics. Routledge, London.

Tyler, S., 1978. The Said and the Unsaid: Mind, Meaning and Culture. Academic Press, New York.

Van Lancker, D., 1990. The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology 3, 169–187.

Van Lancker, D., 1973. Language lateralization and grammars. In: John Kimball, (Ed.), Studies in Syntax

and Semantics, vol. II. Academic Press, New York, pp. 197–204.

Van Lancker, D., 1988. Nonpropositional speech: neurolinguistic studies. In: Ellis, A. (Ed.), Progress in

the Psychology of Language, vol. 3. Lawrence Erlbaum, London, pp. 49–118.

Van Lancker, D., Cummings, J., 1999. Expletives: neurolinguistic and neurobehavioral perspectives on

swearing. Brain Research Reviews 31, 83–104.

Van Lancker, D., 1975. Heterogeneity in language and speech: neurolinguistic studies. Working Papers in

Phonetics, 29. UCLA, LosAngeles.

Van Lancker, D., 1993. Nonpropositional speech in aphasia. In: Blanken, G., Dittmann, J., Grimm, H.,

Marshall, J.C., Wallesch, C.-W. (Eds.), Linguistic Disorders and Pathologies: An International

Handbook. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 215–225.

Van Lancker, D., 2000. A neurolinguistic perspective on proverbs. In: Brown, W. (Ed.), Science of

Wisdom and the Laws of Life. Templeton Foundation Press, Radnor, Pennsylvania, pp. 215–

244.

Van Lancker, D., 2001a. Is your syntactic component really necessary? Aphasiology 14, 343–360.

Van Lancker, D., 2001b. Meaning is first*: a reply to the commentaries. Aphasiology 14, 396–406.

Van Lancker, D., 2001c. Preserved formulaic expressions in a case of transcortical sensory aphasia

compared to incidence in normal everyday speech. Brain and Language 79 (1), 38–41.

Van Lancker-Sidtis, D., 2003. Auditory recognition of idioms by first and second speakers of English: It

takes one to know one. Applied Psycholinguistics 24, 45–57.

Van Lancker-Sidtis, D., 2004. When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the

universe are not enough: toward a dual-process model of language. International Journal of Language

and Communication Disorders 39 (1), 1–44.


Van Lancker, D., Kempler, D., 1987. Comprehension of familiar phrases by left- but not by right-

hemisphere damaged patients. Brain and Language 32, 265–277.

Van Lancker, D., Ohnesorge, C., 2002. Personally familiar proper names are relatively successfully

processed in the human right hemisphere, or, the missing link. Brain and Language 80, 121–129.

Verstraten, L., 1992. Fixed phrases in monolingual learners’ dictionaries. Textual aspects of fixed

expressions in learners’ dictionaries. In: Arnaud, P., Bejoint, H. (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied

Linguistics. Macmillan, London, pp. 28–40.

Weinreich, V., 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms. In: Puhvel, J. (Ed.), Substance and Structure of

Language. University of California Press, London, pp. 23–82.

Wilder, W.I., Diamond, A.L., 1959. Some Like It Hot. Screenplay reprinted in S. Thomas (Ed.). Best

American Screenplays 2. (1st ed.), 1990, Crown Publishers, New York, pp. 80–146.

Winner, E., Gardner, H., 1977. The comprehension of metaphor in brain-damaged patients. Brain 100,

719–727.

Wong Fillmore, L., 1979. Individual differences in second language acquisition. In: Fillmore, C.J.,

Kempler, D., Wang, W.S.-Y. (Eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language

Behavior. Academic Press, London, pp. 203–228.

Wray, A., 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Wray, A., Perkins, M., 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and

Communication 20, 1–28.

Wray, A., 1999a. Formulaic language in learners and native speakers. Language Teaching 32, 213–231.

Wray, A., 1999b. Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: principle and practice. Applied

Linguistics 21, 463–489.

Zolotow, M., 1978. Billy Wilder. In: Tuska, J. (Ed.), Close-up: The Hollywood Director. The Scarecrow

Press, Metachen, NJ, pp. 1–31.

Diana Van Lancker-Sidtis is a neurolinguist and speech pathologist with a special interest in normal and

disordered adult language and speech. She earned advanced degrees in English and Linguistics from the

University of Chicago and Brown University in the USA, and was awarded a NIH Postdoctoral

Fellowship in Communication Disorders at Northwestern University. In 1988, following graduate studies

at California State University at Los Angeles, she was granted clinical certification as a speech pathologist.

As faculty member at the University of North Dakota, the University of California at Los Angeles and the

University of Southern California, she conducted funded research in speech and language, in addition to

teaching and clinical service. In 1998, she was appointed ‘‘Benedict Distinguished Visiting Professor of

Linguistics’’ at Carleton College in Northfield, MN. Most recently, she joined the faculty of New York

University as professor and served as chair of the Department of Speech-Language Pathology for three

years. She is currently on sabbatical leave, enjoying a year as Visiting Scientist at the Nathan Kline

Institute for Psychiatric Research in New York.

Gail Rallon received her Master of Arts degree at the Department of Speech-Language Pathology at

New York University in 2001. As an undergraduate, she specialized in linguistics and psychology. Her

clinical fellowship was completed at the Kessler Institute for Rehabilitation in East Orange, New Jersey.

She has been involved in several research projects and now works as a full time speech-language

pathologist at Helen Hayes Hospital in West Haverstraw, New York.

Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech

Documents

Transcript of Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech